Science and poetry
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
“In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite.”
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
-- Niels Bohr
Who was the first quotation from?
I believe it was written or said by this guy:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=In+science+one+tries+to+tell+people
"Most people ignore most poetry because most poetry ignores most people."
-- Adrian Mitchell
haha Dirac. Yeah well, he probably wasn't much fun to be around, unless you were a physicist.
I have no idea about that, he died too early to share a metaphysical joke with me.
His colleague Pauli is supposed to have reacted to his rant against monotheistic beliefs with: "Well, our friend Dirac has got a religion and its guiding principle is: there is no God, and Paul Dirac is His prophet." He might have been the funny one.
I think his quote about poetry is actually spot on, if interpreted correctly. A poet would condone it.
heh.
There is some video of Dirac, when he is old of course, but still has the presence of mind to teach.
Nietzsche calls all poets liars. Given the close relationship between music and poetry; does that mean musical composers are liars too?
This is much larger than poetry.
Can you imagine better liars than actors?
Actors do not pretend to be whoever they play. In the same way, illusionists may be considered the most honest people: they trick you but affirm they do so. In this way, they show how easily you may be tricked by others, who do not have their honesty.
> Actors do not pretend to be whoever they play.
Of course they do. Have you ever heard any dramatic art teacher telling their students: "you should not pretend to be the character you are playing, just be yourself"? Some actors spend weeks, if not months "getting into" the character they are playing.
It does not mean that actors will use their art to become impostors, but just imagine how good they would be at it. The whole point of art business is about showing you something and making you believe it is something else, most of the time for money. The only difference with swindle is that people are willing to give their money on something they know to be fake.
With successful actors, I find that they become the thing that made them successful. Even when they are not acting, they have this veneer-personality thing happening. It is quite interesting. The thing that caused you to thrive in the world is the thing that your brain would give highest priority to and try to maximize. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
> Even when they are not acting, they have this veneer-personality thing happening.
Do you mean, in their private lifes or when making public appearances? The latter is still part of their show business duties, so I guess they are expected to keep their acting skills on. I have no idea how they actually behave in private.
Same goes for any public person, by the way. Acting and veneering is permanent. Show must go on.
That's true, I can't say anything about their private lives. But why must the show go on for a successful actors? Is it because underneath they are all vain? Why can't they just act the part then be a whole person afterwards? Method acting I suppose is the dominant form. Hmmm...
> But why must the show go on for a successful actors?
I guess they must keep pretending in order to land roles and keep being successful. Brand management.
I feel I need to put things right about art and artists.
If they are liars, it is only to the extent that one is trying to stick to a closed, rational view of life, which might completely miss the true, deep, irrational nature of life. I am sure some are trying in earnest to channel their own perception of reality and to relate with others' subconscious machinery. There were times when "religious art" would have been a redundancy, because art and spirituality were so closely intertwined. Arguably, they were one and the same thing.
But then some might simply be entertainers and consider it as a mere trade, the one which indeed made them successful and which they'd better stick to. Maybe those two cases overlap most often, and the same could be said of any trade: are you doing it mostly because you are good at it and society rewards you for that, or are you doing it mostly because it is the best way you have found to contribute, as a human being, to humanity? Art, arts and the arts might be one and the same thing.
"There's a reason for poetry... Poetry is a very nonlinear use of language, where the meaning is more than just the sum of the parts. And science requires that it be nothing more than the sum of the parts. And just the fact that there's stuff to explain out there that's more than the sum of the parts means that the traditional approach, just characterizing the parts and the relations, is not going to be adequate for capturing the essence of many systems that you would like to be able to do. That's not to say that there isn't a way to do it in a more scientific way than poetry, but I just like the feeling that culturally there's going to be more of something like poetry in the future of science."
-- Christopher Langton.
"The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn.
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man."
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/worrying-words-mozilla#comment-155277
> using it if anything as a pretext for poetry.
He was no troll. Trolls are much more systematic in their trolling sprees. If not Norse mythology creatures, that is.
Yes, he could be malicious, use gratuitous ad hominem and derogatory language, flame at times, flame bait too, post completely off-topic stuff and flood the forum (mostly his own threads in the Troll Lounge, so who cares, really), but this is no trolling. This is arguably failing to abide by the Community Guidelines, which is a different type of sin. His anarchist kernel did not consider it was his job to abide by any sort of rules.
He was rude, aggressive, ruthless, obnoxious and totally egomaniac but never viciously argumentative and so transparent about his own flaws that I hope he managed to get better. He seemed to have developed an addiction to the forum and to the Troll Lounge in particular (who can blame him?), and to cabbage, if I am not mistaken.
One could hear his elaborate gags roll in from so far away that it was rather a sort of playful catch match. As with most other types of gags, though, they have to be permanently renewed or to lose their appeal. Surely he had no idea when to stop. Maybe he will be back in a different form. There seems to have been a lot of disappearing and morphing going on lately.
This is a domestic yak, in the vicinity of Sandakpur peak:
Lots of yaks in the movie Once Upon a Time in Tibet. And lots of yak poop.
Indeed. And lots of time, once upon a yak in Tibet.
This is a specimen of Ovis dalli dalli, staring at you.
Satan has horns like that.
I definitely need these glasses.
Silence, and poverty.
Sirens, and Poettering.
These sirens really look mad, his terror is understandable.
"Art is made to disturb, science reassures".
-- Georges Braque
Note that the opposite also holds, somehow.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires